Ceramic Submariner or Vacheron Constantin Overseas

[improviz]

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

My experience is that Sub C's and most new 3135 based sport watches are excellent time keepers.

I'll concede the 8500 is a nice, technologically advanced mvt.

But, you state only the Sub's weaknesses and the PO's strengths.

The PO has negatives too.

Fairly thick and bulky.

Due to depth rating: relative thickness: 12.53mm (Sub) 15.7mm (PO) 17.7 (Deepsea) The PO has a depth rating of 600m, the Sub has one of 300m, and the Deepsea has one of 3900m. The deeper you go, the thicker you gotta get.

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

Zero clasp adjustment, as in, you need to get your tools and remove links, compare that to the Glidelock, this difference alone is more important and usable in real life than the technical merits of each movement.

Agree with you there, one of the few sore points I have with that watch.

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

Sloppy bezel feel compared to a Sub C.

This always gets mentioned, and I'm wondering if you guys are thinking of another watch. I own two Planet Oceans, and have looked at several Sub Cs, and in both cases the bezels don't have play, and are very tight with precise clicks from one position to the next: on the POs they click with the precision of a ratchet, do not wiggle, and have zero play, very solid feeling, and the same is true on the Sub. I see neither as having "slop" nor any advantage over the other in this regard, both are excellent and a big improvement over their predecessors.

My five year old PO's bezel is as tight as a drum, no slop whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

Reports that Omega's matte ceramic scratches easier than the glossy version on the Sub.

Haven't seen this, would love to see a reference.

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

The same thing that makes the 8500 interesting, could also be a negative, it's newness. Time will tell, literally, on that.

Well the 8500 has been in production now since 2007, and seems to be quite robust, so I'd say so far, it's been great.

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

By most accounts, Rolex has better service.

True, although Rolex's is far from perfect, as evidenced by some of the threads we've been seeing here lately...my single experience with the DFW center was excellent, though a relatively minor issue.

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

And, QC. Sure, I've seen a new Rolex with a QC issue. But I have seen exactly 3 new 8500 PO's at different AD's, all 3 had an obvious QC issue. I've seen hundreds of Rolexes at AD's, I might recall a slightly misaligned bezel on one or 2.

My experience is the opposite. The 1661x Subs commonly had slight bezel misalignments, but this is an easy fix....but I've never encountered a misaligned bezel in a PO, although I've heard of it with others. But solution there is simple: make sure the one you buy has an aligned bezel. :)

Also on GMTIIc (including mine) there is a well-documented issue with the date getting stuck between previous day and current between midnight and 2AM; it's easy to fix as I've documented, but is still an annoyance and not indicative of a thorough checking out before leaving the factory...

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

The 3135 works. It has had a few minor tweaks, most recently the hairspring.

The fact is, my Sub C resists shock and magnetism better than any watch I've owned, and is the most accurate watch I've owned. For me, the proof is in the pudding. The current version of the 3135 is very reliable, accurate, anti magnetic and it resists shock. It simply does what it needs to do.

Yes, all true, and it is a very tough, robust movement by all accounts, but I believe Chris's point is that Rolex's approach as of late has been excessively conservative, and improvements have been extremely incremental: for example, their power reserve is now towards the bottom end of the scale, and an improvement would be appreciated.

Still, it is a great, reliable, excellent timepiece, and I don't think Chris is implying that it's not a great watch, only that it could have been more great with a few more improvements, and that Rolex is, to an extent, playing it a bit too conservative as of late.

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

Yes, I wish it had a 72 hour PR, and a better bearing system for the rotor. :)

Agreed. :)

Originally Posted by Megalobyte

Much is made of the longer omega service intervals. What about the seals/gaskets?

I'm sure they're excellent in order to obtain that depth rating, wouldn't worry about that.

[submariner66]

Didn't I read somewhere that Rolex helped invent and develop the co-axial escapement with a few other manufacturers, including Omega, it was apparently a rare thing for such titans in the watch industry to come together and collaborate. Then Rolex choose not to purse it? I am not sure on this whole thing but I remember reading this. Can someone clarify, correct or elaborate?

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by submariner66

Didn't I read somewhere that Rolex helped invent and develop the co-axial escapement with a few other manufacturers, including Omega, it was apparently a rare thing for such titans in the watch industry to come together and collaborate. Then Rolex choose not to purse it? I am not sure on this whole thing but I remember reading this. Can someone clarify, correct or elaborate?

I've never read anything like that, John, as far as I'm aware, it was a George Daniels invention (a British master watchmaker who very sadly passed away earlier this year). He pitched the concept to pretty much all of the major watch houses, and Omega decided to pursue it

[AJMarcus]

No brainer for me. the SS Sub C is The legendary Man for All Seasons Watch

[GeoGio Greece]

I have the experience of both

VC is more expensive and more sensitive in knocks, water, shocks, not as reliable in every day life as the Sub. And not that rugged. And when you come to servicing the VC is a hell of a lot more.

The Sub is on its own league, the best watch money can buy in its class.
With the price difference, get the Sub and a "dressy" of another maker. This is what I would do.

[improviz]

Originally Posted by GeoGio Greece

With the price difference, get the Sub and a "dressy" of another maker. This is what I would do.

This is an excellent point. Price-wise, these two aren't even close: the Sub lists at just over 1/3 the MSRP of the VC, the two are really from different leagues.

For the OP, the Sub should be fine for your needs, or you can for that matter get a GMTIIc which has 100m depth rating, plenty for all except the very serious scuba diving types, and dresses up a bit nicer with the PCLs...the Sub is a pretty versatile watch in its own right, though, it's pretty commonplace to see divers with suits anymore.

I'm actually planning on getting a VC Overseas for my next purchase; was decided on the black chrono until I tried both it and the non-chrono version on at an AD and decided I liked the latter's less-busy face more (a nice surprise from a cost perspective! ), but for me it will be reserved for dress up/go out type occasions, while the divers are typically tapped for swimming and/or business casual attire.

Good luck and let us know what you get!

[kkwn98]

Originally Posted by submariner66

Didn't I read somewhere that Rolex helped invent and develop the co-axial escapement with a few other manufacturers, including Omega, it was apparently a rare thing for such titans in the watch industry to come together and collaborate. Then Rolex choose not to purse it? I am not sure on this whole thing but I remember reading this. Can someone clarify, correct or elaborate?

I can't tell you if you did or did not read this somewhere, but it is 100% incorrect. The co-axial escapement was invented by George Daniels, pure and simple.

[submariner66]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

I've never read anything like that, John, as far as I'm aware, it was a George Daniels invention (a British master watchmaker who very sadly passed away earlier this year). He pitched the concept to pretty much all of the major watch houses, and Omega decided to pursue it

Yes, now I found the article it was a financial collaboration between Rolex, Patek, and Swatch Group to find a solution to temperature fluctuations in silicon hairsprings. Sorry! I found it in the August issue of Watch Time an interesting article about Swatchgroup and hairsprings and what other watch makers are coming up with as a solution to an impending non-supply by Swatch Group.

[www777]

Great post re the 8500. I'm loyal NOW to Rolex but you are right. No innovation in movements. No see through backs. They do seem to rely on the brand name. But then again the sky dweller is an amazing movement. Why not spend an extra 100 on a 50,000 watch to decorate the movement and have a see though back?

[ckv_1860]

Originally Posted by The GMT Master

2) The competition is better. I will use the Omega cal. 8500 as my main example as that is where my depth of knowledge lies. With ETA cutting off supplies of ebauches, watch companies are being forced to become true manufacturers again, instead of basically being glorified case and bracelet makers. That means there's a lot of interesting new calibres emerging, with lots of interesting ideas, all looking to improve upon the benchmark laid down by the cal. 3135 and 2892 A2. Panerai, IWC, Omega, Breitling, all of Rolex's direct competitors are coming after them. Going back to the cal. 8500, it looks like Omega has taken every weakness that the cal. 3135 has and improved on it:


Chris

Just to comment on a very fine point with regards to Omega since you mention it. As even JC Monachon himself has admitted, and irrespective of how Omega wishes to present it, the 8500 cal. is not a fully in-house movement. It is rather a movement completely assembled in the Omega compound. On the plus side Omega realised the need to utilise a new movement that is a radical departure from what they used up until that point. Hence the 8500 is designed from scratch as co-axial (instead of being a modification as was done with the ETA 2892 that resulted in the previously used 2500 cal) with all the goodies you described but the development was primarily achieved due to the expertise found within the SWATCH group of companies (ETA, FP etc). Essentially, these companies are responsible for the fantastic end-product that still has to prove how good/ reliable it is.

Furthermore, I trully and fully appreciate your point however I would like to offer a different perspective. Maybe Rolex has concentrated too much on the outside of the Sub (result subjective) and failed to adequately modernise the 3135 cal (objective). That does not automatically mean it has lost the the will to innovate. For starters Rolex has moved towards completely in-house maybe not with the 3135 in the Sub but with other movements evolving and improving them (and that is a good thing as described in your post). On the other hand one cannot forget the new 9001 movement with 72hour power reserve, annual calendar, two time zones that powers a completely new model with an intuitive control mechanism - all completely developed and produced in house. It is a move that clearly signifies the effort made by Rolex to push forward and enter a more exclusive club of watch-makers while maintaining the broad base that the firm has managed to obtain. Perhaps this ties down a lot of resources, more than some would like. Maybe the road chosen by Rolex is not the most likeable but suggesting a complete and utter lack of innovation is, in my personal opinion, maybe pushing it a bit too far. Apologies for my bubbling...

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by submariner66

Yes, now I found the article it was a financial collaboration between Rolex, Patek, and Swatch Group to find a solution to temperature fluctuations in silicon hairsprings. Sorry! I found it in the August issue of Watch Time an interesting article about Swatchgroup and hairsprings and what other watch makers are coming up with as a solution to an impending non-supply by Swatch Group.

Sounds like a good read I do wonder if Rolex's decision to go to Parachrom hairsprings was more to do with marketing than providing the best possible hairspring for their watches

[snaggle]

My father has the VC overseas. He bought it in 2012 but got the model just prior to the one you have. It seems this model must be very recent and must have JUST came out...

He really likes and sais its a great watch. It keeps EXCELLENT time. Other than that what you see is what you get, so its your choice.

[The GMT Master]

Originally Posted by ckv_1860

Just to comment on a very fine point with regards to Omega since you mention it. As even JC Monachon himself has admitted, and irrespective of how Omega wishes to present it, the 8500 cal. is not a fully in-house movement. It is rather a movement completely assembled in the Omega compound. On the plus side Omega realised the need to utilise a new movement that is a radical departure from what they used up until that point. Hence the 8500 is designed from scratch as co-axial (instead of being a modification as was done with the ETA 2892 that resulted in the previously used 2500 cal) with all the goodies you described but the development was primarily achieved due to the expertise found within the SWATCH group of companies (ETA, FP etc). Essentially, these companies are responsible for the fantastic end-product that still has to prove how good/ reliable it is.

Furthermore, I trully and fully appreciate your point however I would like to offer a different perspective. Maybe Rolex has concentrated too much on the outside of the Sub (result subjective) and failed to adequately modernise the 3135 cal (objective). That does not automatically mean it has lost the the will to innovate. For starters Rolex has moved towards completely in-house maybe not with the 3135 in the Sub but with other movements evolving and improving them (and that is a good thing as described in your post). On the other hand one cannot forget the new 9001 movement with 72hour power reserve, annual calendar, two time zones that powers a completely new model with an intuitive control mechanism - all completely developed and produced in house. It is a move that clearly signifies the effort made by Rolex to push forward and enter a more exclusive club of watch-makers while maintaining the broad base that the firm has managed to obtain. Perhaps this ties down a lot of resources, more than some would like. Maybe the road chosen by Rolex is not the most likeable but suggesting a complete and utter lack of innovation is, in my personal opinion, maybe pushing it a bit too far. Apologies for my bubbling...

Some great points raised I guess when you have a parent company like the Swatch Group with so many different brands under its name, there is always going to be transfer of information - I wouldn't be surprised that the ceramics used by Omega were created using the expertise gained by Rado's extensive use of the material. Perhaps instead of in-house, the cal. 8500 should be described as "unique and exclusive to Omega." I'm not surprised that the Swatch Group wants to use a wide range of resources for Omega, in terms of branding, it's hugely important for them, and I think they're just beginning to scratch the surface of its potential.


I'm glad you brought up the cal. 9001 - that, along with the 4160 demonstrate that Rolex know how to think outside of the box. Both use some extremely impressive complications, and new bezel control system is ingenious. I guess I just wish they sprinkled some of the same magic on the movement that is available to the vast majority of Rolex customers - the YM II and Sky-Dweller are halo pieces that very few folks will actually have the opportunity to own.

I can appreciate that Rolex wants to move into a new market (although it is putting itself up against the might of the haute-horology set - it's no easy thing to create a movement comparable with the complication pieces of the likes of PP, AP, Lange & Sohne etc.), but I hope they don't neglect their core customer base. The pieces are all there within the company, but it didn't quite come together to create a knockout piece with the new Submariner. I still firmly believe that they went for the safe option, and I think it's a shame.

Chris

[honeybear]

I have both a Vacheron Constantin Overseas and a Rolex Submariner (No Date).




They're very different watches. The Sub is a fantastic choice for everyday wear, where I wouldn't be too concerned about it collecting the usual dings, nicks, and scratches that come with wearing it on a regular basis.

In contrast, the finish on the Overseas is extraordinary, and the subtle interplay of brushed vs polished surfaces make for a far more refined, and stylistically delicate watch, which I think would look much worse if all scratched up.

As others have mentioned, the Vacheron is at a totally different level from the Rolex, and it is much more suitable in the corporate boardroom than at the beach. With the new in-house chronograph movement, the VCO is competing at the level of an Audemars Piguet Royal Oak, or a Patek Philippe Nautilus, and I suspect that the price will easily be three times (if not more) that of the Rolex Submariner.

[cajunron]

The VC Overseas is a grail for me. I love Rolex, but I would choose the Overseas over the Sub.

[dalip]

Originally Posted by jimbones43

Filter out the negative comments on both watches as the are both great and will last a lifetime and bring you serious joy. YOU must form your own opinion and live with your decision.

Good luck whatever you decide!
Cheers
Jimc

This is a good point. Specifically the reference to "negative" comments Jim, which you've also picked up on and questioned in this thread.

There are clear agendas being noticed (which have appeared again here) with the continual need to 'down' one brand in order to pump up another. I refer to the omega /Rolex commentary in particular.

It's now becoming a little too obvious....and quite frankly...dull. Let's keep a check on this as members are now reporting becoming tired of it.

Great to discuss and provide clear info about particular movements and their advantage but let's lose the agenda which is being signaled. There is no disputing the fantastic knowledge which is being provided here at all.

[Linzjnr]

Originally Posted by Feras

That VC looks great but i am biased toward Rolex models :-)

X2, Sub for me

[Jannal]

I like my watches to be simple and clean, so between the 2 models it has to be the Sub C 116610LN.

[WatchingTime]

I have no experience with a VC, but I know the Submariner has gotten long in the tooth. I would choose the new Explorer II w/ new movement over a Sub. There are just way too many subs out there to feel like your wearing anything special. If you want a watch not many have seen, it sounds like a VC might be a better choice.

[Christiaan]

Vc

[QueueCumber]

Generally I prefer a watch where the movements are made inhouse, which would mean telling you to buy the Rolex and not the VC, but you can't throw a stone without seeing a SS Sub in metropolitan areas, so I will recommend the VC instead...

TT ceramic sub would be a different story. Then I would say get the sub....

[AmbSteve]

Nice short video on the VC Overseas:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnSXk...eature=related

[Vincile]

VC really great

[TPACE]

Sub for sure, look better in every way.

[braningan]

VC for me ..

[Nitedeuce]

I also own both a Sub and a VC Overseas (Date Automatic, White Face). I considermyself a true Rolex devotee and have owned many since my first Sub in 1984. I was looking for a higher end watch, not so much a sports watch as all my Rolex models are (Sub, GMT and Explorer). However, after a lot of comparing in the ADs, forums and magazines, I realized I just like a sports style watch better than a dressy one, even for a dress watch. I passed VC ADs in my area often, but they never had an Overseas Automatic Date on a bracelet until a few months ago. Once I put it on I was in love. I knew without a doubt that this was the one. It's been a few months now and I am still in awe at the subtle beauty of this watch. It also is an impressive time keeper. I believe as some have mentioned that the movement on mine is JLC based. I'm fine with the movement and am not concerned about 100% in-house as this one is staying with me for the long haul. I will say that the Chrono was attractive from a 'big date' standpoint. I generally don't go for chronos because it's hard for me to see the small dials. The VC Overseas Chrono has an easier to read date than the Overseas Automatic Date. Very nice, and an excellent choice for a chrono or big date fan. I'll always be a Rolex guy, but the VC is really all that IMO.

[kkwn98]

Originally Posted by Nitedeuce

I also own both a Sub and a VC Overseas (Date Automatic, White Face). I considermyself a true Rolex devotee and have owned many since my first Sub in 1984. I was looking for a higher end watch, not so much a sports watch as all my Rolex models are (Sub, GMT and Explorer). However, after a lot of comparing in the ADs, forums and magazines, I realized I just like a sports style watch better than a dressy one, even for a dress watch. I passed VC ADs in my area often, but they never had an Overseas Automatic Date on a bracelet until a few months ago. Once I put it on I was in love. I knew without a doubt that this was the one. It's been a few months now and I am still in awe at the subtle beauty of this watch. It also is an impressive time keeper. I believe as some have mentioned that the movement on mine is JLC based. I'm fine with the movement and am not concerned about 100% in-house as this one is staying with me for the long haul. I will say that the Chrono was attractive from a 'big date' standpoint. I generally don't go for chronos because it's hard for me to see the small dials. The VC Overseas Chrono has an easier to read date than the Overseas Automatic Date. Very nice, and an excellent choice for a chrono or big date fan. I'll always be a Rolex guy, but the VC is really all that IMO.

Nice watch you have there. I believe the Overseas automatic date uses, as its base calibre, the Girard Perregaux calibre 3100.

[capote]

Originally Posted by kkwn98

Nice watch you have there. I believe the Overseas automatic date uses, as its base calibre, the Girard Perregaux calibre 3100.

That was the previous generation OS date. The current one has a JLC 889/2 movement.

[kkwn98]

Originally Posted by capote

That was the previous generation OS date. The current one has a JLC 889/2 movement.

Thanks for this; didn't know they switched to a JLC base (although, given their history together, I wonder why Vacheron didn't use the JLC calibre in the first place).

[capote]

Originally Posted by kkwn98

Thanks for this; didn't know they switched to a JLC base (although, given their history together, I wonder why Vacheron didn't use the JLC calibre in the first place).

Yes I agree, the same JLC caliber has been used before by VC.